Get project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about what the response contains (issue type hierarchy, sub-task classification), but says nothing about errors for unknown project keys, or which site is used when 'site' is omitted. That's a modest value-add on top of the annotations rather than rich disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the payload description comes first. Slight weakness: the opening is a verbless fragment ('Project details including...'), making the primary action slightly less front-loaded than a clear 'Get a project's details...'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does identify the key returned data (issue types with hierarchy and sub-task flags). For a two-parameter read tool that is largely sufficient; only secondary project fields and failure behavior are unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both projectKey and site documented in-schema including examples and the default-site fallback. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (project) and enumerates the most useful payload fields (issue types, hierarchy level, sub-task flag), which tells an agent what it gets back rather than just 'get project'. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling jira_get_issue_types or jira_list_projects, so an agent comparing them still has ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Call before creating issues in an unfamiliar project' gives a concrete triggering situation, which is real routing value. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. when the project is already known or when jira_get_create_fields is the better call).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.